Financial Crisis

[Billsthoughts]

Without wanting to sound like a 1st year economics teacher, the "proper" value is whatever someone will pay for it.

On that basis, Irish property is still way overvalued as sellers vastly outnumber buyers. This is an indisputable fact.

But more importantly using internationally comparable indices and metrics such as rental yield, average income etc. Irish property is still up to 30% overvalued.

?????
where in my post did I use the term "proper" value?
If the last few years have proved anything here is that people will pay whatever the banks will lend them.

[NeilMcD]

I wonder will the banks be so willing to lend them money so easy over the next few years. Average house price is something like 12 times the average wage here in Ireland which is way too much. That is not sustainable.

[Billsthoughts]

we are already seeing that.

[dahamsta]

Is this just a blip or a re-adjustment then!!!! These are the terms not too long ago by a few economists and by the construction industry.And plenty of people here too. Might I remind you of the phrase "soft landing"? :rolleyes:

[SMorgan]

Relax everybody, the Government have been on the RTE to say that there is no Financial Crisis and asking them (Joe Duffy) to stop talking down the Country.

I reckon we're not far away from getting a good old Soviet type Ministry of Information.

[OneRedArmy]

?????
where in my post did I use the term "proper" value?
If the last few years have proved anything here is that people will pay whatever the banks will lend them.

I used the term proper value to highlight that as there currently isn't a real housing market (low volume of transactions) nobody can really value properties.

Whilst values in the past may have been driven by what lenders were willing to lend, this is no longer the case because of lower LTVs & higher interest rates. But also, buyers had ridiculous assumptions of capital appreciation which led to everyone turning into mini-property magnates. Going forward houses will be bought as homes, not as a speculative assets.

You've said that people won't be able to ride into town & buy something for a song. If arrears & repossessions continue to increase, that's exactly what people will do (particularly buy-to-lets, not covered by FHPA).

[pete]

In the US the state is setting up a fund to buy the dodgy mortgages. Projected it could cost upwards of $1 trillion! All to be funded by government bonds and more borrowing. Amazing that bankers can mess up so badly they government gives them a free pass as can't accept the alternative.

:eek:

[pete]

I think the last tow remaining Investment Banks (Morgan Stanley & the other one) have now changed their status so they can take deposits off the public. This means they come under the "regulation" of the Fed.

Bush has been very quiet & really appears to have little control & not even making the decisions that will commit the US taxpayers to so much debt. Imagine if the Irish Central Bank bailed out our banks to the tune of E20billion & Cowen didn't give the ok.

[Macy]

I think it shows the US Governments priorities in all this that they are bailing out the banks directly. Surely the most equitable way of doing it would be to support the mortgage holders in making their payments?

Funny how all these greed is good capitalists are now suddenly in favour of Government interventions rather than the market running it's course. :rolleyes:

[strangeirish]

I can't believe Section 8 of this so called bailout bill has not been challenged, yet.

'Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.'

Paulson is bailing out his old wall street buddies and he or his successor can't be held accountable for 700 billion dollars of tax payers money! The purchase of dodgy mortgages with this money will be administered by Paulsons Dept, but, who's going to manage and service these mortgages? Ah, maybe they'll find someone on wall street to handle that part for them?

Something smells here, and smells bad.

Edit: Is there any wonder that the republicans wanted this passed asap?

[pete]

Apparently the Federal Reserve is actually a private bank although most people would believe it is public. Bush is tell the other politicians to sign up quickly despite the fact he seems to have had little input.In election year seems like the other politicians are growing a pair that has been missing since post 9/11. From what I have read politicians on both sides are querying this.

I wonder how many shares in USA Inc. China have been buying on the cheap.

[dahamsta]

Apparently the Federal Reserve is actually a private bank although most people would believe it is public.It's both actually, the Board of Directors is elected by the banks but the Board of Governors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#Balance_between_private_ban ks_and_responsibility_of_government

The wife was speculating about China Inc yesterday too. They already own a huge portion of their national debt, so a little private ownership should bring things to a head nicely. (More) Nationalism next, then war? Sound familiar?

adam

[pete]

It's both actually, the Board of Directors is elected by the banks but the Board of Governors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#Balance_between_private_ban ks_and_responsibility_of_government


If you are really interested see below. Explains how the Federal Reserve was apparently illegally privatised.

-1656880303867390173&ei=5nLZSKSuK5LAqALVlPC-Ag&q
AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM

China apparently holds a lot of US government & bonds. They also hold a lot of bonds from Frannie Mae & Freddie Mac at a higher rate than the government bonds because they were perceived not quiet as secure as government bonds. Those that held the later bonds will do very well.

Its surprising the dollar actually worth anything any more.

[strangeirish]

I've never heard of this associated press writer before, but I like her terminology...here. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080928/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown)
:D

Here's the part that made me laugh, just in case it's modified in the above link.

http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=xMTIuUwNc1gnP889RSUiYwblTGqyDkjgIUcABlvd&T=1i4dkhgts%2fX%3d1222648135%2fE%3d8903535%2fR%3dn ews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d20 02740427%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJ XaGl0ZTtIb3VzZTtlbGVjdGlvbjtwb2xpdGljcztnaXZlO21vb mV5O2hvbWUgbW9ydGdhZ2U7aXQ7QW1lcmljYW47Z292ZXJubWV udDtEZXByZXNzaW9uO1dhc2hpbmd0b247Y3JlZGl0O0Jhbmtpb mc7SG91c2luZztQYXVsc29uO21vcnRnYWdlcztwcmljZTtSZXB 1YmxpY2FuO2hvbWUgbG9hbnM7aGVscDtEZW1vY3JhdGljO3Rhe GVzO3N0b2NrO3JlbGllZjtob3VzaW5nO2Z1bmQ7SXQ7QmVybmF ua2U7RmVkZXJhbCBSZXNlcnZlO3BhaW47cmVmdXJsX2Zvb3Rfa WUiIHJlZnVybD0icmVmdXJsX2Zvb3RfaWUiIHRvcGljcz0icmV mdXJsX2Zvb3RfaWUi%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d20730D4C&U=13fnusqru%2fN%3djXxQC0wNBks-%2fC%3d682201.12863699.13222523.1414694%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d5502886%2fV%3d1
'The plan, bo**ixed up for days by election-year politics, would give the administration broad power to use taxpayers' money to purchase billions upon billions of home mortgage-related assets held by cash-starved financial firms.'

Apologies for trying to circumvent the word filter, but that is just too damn funny. Maybe she is trying to inject a new word into US politics...:D

[tricky_colour]

Unfortunately its this kind of rationale that has led us to the current problems.

Economic development creates housing demand which is met by building houses. When the primary source of this economic deveopment is...housebuilding & ancilliary property services, then it shouldn't take a genius to work out it's an unsustainable bubble and the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine

Not really, when you build a house you have something of value, true value you can live in it for a start. What creates bubbles is not building enough prices, which causes house price inflation - ie false wealth, people think they are wealthier because there are insufficient houses, a really bizarre way of thinking.
You can increase house prices by knocking houses down!!
You could do it untill there was only one house left worth a triilion Euros!!
But would people be better off? No.

[pete]

Read a good article on this at the weekend & was blaming US mess the very cheap credit. Us Interest rates were 1-2% a few years ago & when money is that cheap encourages speculation. It rewards the speculator & punishes the thrifty saver.

Edit: Bradford & Bingley nationalisation is confirmed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7641193.stm) although seems due to the way UK market is regulated the other Banks will have to pay the compensation over time.

How long before an Irish bank is trouble? Seem naive to think the crisis can be avoid despite government claims everything is ok...?

[OneRedArmy]

Not really, when you build a house you have something of value, true value you can live in it for a start. What creates bubbles is not building enough prices, which causes house price inflation - ie false wealth, people think they are wealthier because there are insufficient houses, a really bizarre way of thinking.
You can increase house prices by knocking houses down!!
You could do it untill there was only one house left worth a triilion Euros!!
But would people be better off? No.I don't really understand your point to be honest. Maybe if you used real examples it might be clearer?


How long before an Irish bank is trouble? Seem naive to think the crisis can be avoid despite government claims everything is ok...?Define trouble? If its liquidity driven trouble then it can happen very, very quickly. I'd be mildly surprised if we get to the end of this week without something coming out, very surprised if the Irish banking market looks the same at the end of October and absolutely shocked if haven't seen some change by Christmas.

[OneRedArmy]

I'd be mildly surprised if we get to the end of this week without something coming out, very surprised if the Irish banking market looks the same at the end of October and absolutely shocked if haven't seen some change by Christmas.
It appears my timelines above were too generous if anything.

Wouldn't be surprised if something happens overnight...

[pete]

It appears my timelines above were too generous if anything.
Wouldn't be surprised if something happens overnight...

Should I be selling? :eek:

[soccerc]

Should I be selling? :eek:

Too late, they are now probably worthless pices of paper ;)

[OneRedArmy]

Should I be selling? :eek:
If you haven't sold before now then hold on as at this stage the downside is pretty much exhausted and a merger is the most likely way out.

Have faith in our communist system......err I mean capitalist system :D

[pete]

Have faith in our communist system......err I mean capitalist system :D

As friend in the US said to be last week when talking about government bail out over there. "Its not socialism, its National Socialism" We all know that by another name.

[SMorgan]

We may get the hard hats on today because goodness knows what's going to happen today with the rejection of the bail-out.

[OneRedArmy]

Government guarantee being well received by the markets (wonder if it will last?) but this move was clearly driven by something.

The Congress decision is very, very interesting, particularly given that both Presidential candidates supported it.

Could mark the end of the US as a superpower.

Edit: Just found out some of the detail. The guarantee isn't aimed at retail deposits (although it obviously covers those lucky enough to have more than E100k on deposit!). It also covers, senior and dated sub-ord debt, covered bonds and inter-bank lending. Thats all the info you need to know to determine why this was brought in at 2am on a Tuesday morning (liquidity crisis at one or more Irish institution which backed up yesterdays rumours). This is the final throw of the dice, there's nothing left to give.

[pete]

Was Irish decision an effort to save Anglo Irish Bank who lost something like half its value yesterday?

I was amazed to hear US politicians say some of them rejected the plan due to partisan speech. Even if true seems idiotic to admit that as I don't see the public blaming the person who made the partisan speech.

The best alternative I have heard to the US bailout plan that was rejected yesterday is to tax share dealings (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/26). Apparently a 0.25% tax on transactions would yield $150bn per year. This would also encourage long term investments & make daily trading/gambling less attractive. Doesn't cost the US taxpayer any money directly so is financed by the industry itself.


But there's another way: Create an agency to fund the bailout, loan that agency the money from the treasury, and then have that agency tax Wall Street to pay us (the treasury) back.

For us, this Securities Turnover Excise Tax (STET) was a revenue source. For example, if we were to instate a .25 percent STET (tax) on every stock, swap, derivitive, or other trade today, it would produce - in its first year - around $150 billion in revenue. Wall Street would be generating the money to fund its own bailout. (For comparison, as best I can determine, the UK's STET is .25 percent, and Taiwan just dropped theirs from .60 to .30 percent.)

[OneRedArmy]

Was Irish decision an effort to save Anglo Irish Bank who lost something like half its value yesterday?To me, the decision looks like a clear attempt to stop an immediate liquidity crisis with one or more of the Irish banks.

Its the liquidity thats the killer, the share price is one of the symptoms.

Actually, on the share price, given there was no official info released yesterday to the markets and prices fell very sharply after lunch, I hope the FinReg are investigating potential insider trading/market abuse as it looks fishy.

[Macy]

Edit: Just found out some of the detail. The guarantee isn't aimed at retail deposits (although it obviously covers those lucky enough to have more than E100k on deposit!). It also covers, senior and dated sub-ord debt, covered bonds and inter-bank lending. Thats all the info you need to know to determine why this was brought in at 2am on a Tuesday morning (liquidity crisis at one or more Irish institution which backed up yesterdays rumours). This is the final throw of the dice, there's nothing left to give.
Obviously either the banks or the Government was bluffing with all the recent assurances. So the Government allow crazy leading practices to their builder buddies, and now come in as the white night to protect their banking buddies from the fall out. Benefit to the normal joe bloggs tax payer? Well there is no benefit from this deal bar proping up the banks - no return on possible investment, just a bail out. I guess we can see why the Tribunals find it so hard to get financial records out of the banks.

[OneRedArmy]

Obviously either the banks or the Government was bluffing with all the recent assurances. So the Government allow crazy leading practices to their builder buddies, and now come in as the white night to protect their banking buddies from the fall out. Benefit to the normal joe bloggs tax payer? Well there is no benefit from this deal bar proping up the banks - no return on possible investment, just a bail out. I guess we can see why the Tribunals find it so hard to get financial records out of the banks.Macy your core point that banks are being bailed out for their mistakes is absolutely correct. But the alternative would've been either banks going under, or foreign ownership of the banking sector and likely huge job losses either way (this may yet still happen).

Also, the Government lending is at commercial rates.

The benefit to the taxpayer is keeping a large number of individuals as taxpayers (as opposed to being on the dole) and securing their savings.

[Macy]

There was always the nationalisation option, which would've protected jobs, given the Government a chance to control the wages and bonuses of the execs that got us into this mess in the first place, and would've provided the tax payer with a return in the future (either through on going profits or through a privatisation).

This is a no loss bail out to bank exec's, bank shareholders and ultimately anyone that's into the banks for millions (no pressure for the banks to foreclose, so lots of builders/developers/ landowners can breath easy).

I'm not against state intervention, just the form of it.

[OneRedArmy]

There was always the nationalisation option, which would've protected jobs, given the Government a chance to control the wages and bonuses of the execs that got us into this mess in the first place, and would've provided the tax payer with a return in the future (either through on going profits or through a privatisation)..Given that the EU have already stated they are reviewing the current plan from a competition standpoint I'd say nationalisation of the whole sector is a non-runner.

Also, the guarantee is being provided at commercial rates, ergo there is an immediate return. Nationalisation would be a huge cost with only a dim prospect of a future return.



This is a no loss bail out to bank exec's, bank shareholders and ultimately anyone that's into the banks for millions (no pressure for the banks to foreclose, so lots of builders/developers/ landowners can breath easy)..This was a liquidity driven event. Credit decisions such as you mention, have been, are and will continue to happen. Builders/developers and landowners can't breathe easy, as this fundamentally has got nothing to do with them. If you have info to the contrary please provide it, otherwise you are descending into Joe Duffy territory.

[pete]

I hope the FinReg are investigating potential insider trading/market abuse as it looks fishy.

Do they ever do that? Not convinced the regulator does much really... They keep saying everything in ok but why do the markets not believe them?

The regulator in the UK seemed to be asleep which almost let Northen Rock & Bradford & Bigley go under.

[OneRedArmy]

Do they ever do that? Not convinced the regulator does much really... They keep saying everything in ok but why do the markets not believe them? .Insider trading is very, very difficult to prove in a court of law, verging on the impossible.

Regulator's do what they can but they can't pre-approve every decision banks make.


The regulator in the UK seemed to be asleep which almost let Northen Rock & Bradford & Bigley go under.Northern Rock and B&B went under, there's no almost. FSA definitely asleep on the Rock case, on B&B I'd say they knew it was coming and were powerless to do anything about it as it was too late.

Nobody has ever really spent much time on widespread systemic failure (which is what we are seeing now). Regulator's generally focus on specific institutional risks (eg rogue traders etc.).

What we are seeing now is that the whole industry went in the wrong direction.

[Macy]

Given that the EU have already stated they are reviewing the current plan from a competition standpoint I'd say nationalisation of the whole sector is a non-runner.
And the EU have said they'd be investigating this deal on competition grounds too.


Also, the guarantee is being provided at commercial rates, ergo there is an immediate return. Nationalisation would be a huge cost with only a dim prospect of a future return.
Not on last nights share prices - 50% stake in the 6 would've cost €5 billion, as opposed to €400-500bn risk of this deal.


This was a liquidity driven event. Credit decisions such as you mention, have been, are and will continue to happen. Builders/developers and landowners can't breathe easy, as this fundamentally has got nothing to do with them. If you have info to the contrary please provide it, otherwise you are descending into Joe Duffy territory.
"Joe Duffy territory" possibly the most cutting insult I've ever got on line! :D Guaranteed bad debts mean that the bank is more likely to sit it out rather than take assets off the builders, imo.

[Bald Student]

Northern Rock and B&B went under, there's no almost. FSA definitely asleep on the Rock case, on B&B I'd say they knew it was coming and were powerless to do anything about it as it was too late.Would it be fair to say that the regulator can't do much now? That the banks are where they are because the regulator wasn't tight enough on them in the past?


Not on last nights share prices - 50% stake in the 6 would've cost €5 billion, as opposed to €400-500bn risk of this deal.Unless I'm missing something, buying 50% of the bank doesn't in itself do anything to remove the risk. Any bad debts that there are will still exist.

[Macy]

Unless I'm missing something, buying 50% of the bank doesn't in itself do anything to remove the risk. Any bad debts that there are will still exist.
The bad debts still exist now. Even a part nationalisation would've have had the same effect as the deal, only with some form of return for the taxpayer.

[Bald Student]

The bad debts still exist now. Even a part nationalisation would've have had the same effect as the deal, only with some form of return for the taxpayer.
Maybe I'm just slow but I genuinely don't follow what you're saying.

If the government had guaranteed the deposits by buying half the banks shares it would have exactly the same liability as it has now but would have paid 5 billion (or whatever) to the current shareholders to take on the liability. The government would still have to pay out if the banks ran short of money, I don't see how taking equity would have removed the 400-500 billion euro risk.

[Macy]

It wouldn't have to put up the €500bn as instead the €5bn investment would be enough to increase the Irish Banks credit rating and get them out of any pending liquidity problems without explicitly exposing the state to the risk it has. It would also have the power to penalise the executives that got the banks into this mess, and would have more control over future lending policy to avoid it happening again. At the moment there is zero consequence for the banks. If all goes well, the banks will enjoy and keep all their bumper profits (and their mega bonuses) as it ever was, and if it goes belly up they'll be bailed out by the Government at no cost to them or the shareholders. It's a no lose for the banks and the bankers in charge.

[pete]

The government already guarantees 100k per account. In current circumstances unlikely any one is holding more than 100k in any bank if he can. Extending the guarantee to inter bank transactions hardly makes much difference & they will never have to pay 500bn anyway.

[Bald Student]

I'm no expert at this stuff (as you can probably tell) but if the banks have a liquidity problem rather than a solvency one then I don't see how the government stands to loose at all in the long run. If what you're saying is correct and the banks need 5 billion euro to get them over the current problems but they'll be able to repay it in the long run then the government isn't exposed at all. If the opposite is true and the banks assets have dropped to a value that they're not able to cover liabilities, then the government's exposed either way.

Also, are you correct when you say "and if it goes belly up they'll be bailed out by the Government at no cost to them or the shareholders."? In all the foreign examples the shareholders' investments have been forfeit when a bank went bust and the banks profits weren't protected either, they were put towards covering the liabilities.

[OneRedArmy]

Macy, the equity investment you have suggested wouldn't have taken away the need to provide the same liquidity support.

You are right that it would better reward Government for providing the liquidity but in and of itself, it would likely have resulted in the Government very quickly holding equity that was worth zero when one or more of the banks ran out of liquidity.

In terms of zero consequences to the banks, pretty much every employee of the aforementioned banks, from the CEO to the staff in the branches is sitting on shares worth a fraction of what they were. For those with a lot of years service (regardless of seniority), the loss is massive.

Its not heads on a plate stuff but again its very far from "no lose". As for "future bonuses and profits", I can't see that being an issue for quite a while.

[tricky_colour]

I don't really understand your point to be honest. Maybe if you used real examples it might be clearer?


The point is that building houses creates wealth, it's stating the obvious.
If you build a house you have something of value, if you build two of them you have twice the value etc..
It may lower house prices but that's a good thing, high house prices make people poor.

[pete]

Not feeling good about the government guarantees any more.

We are told everything is but no other government has made this move. The guarantee is i believe for all debts over two year period which is fairly wide ranging.

All I can see is this has boosted bank shares which does not solve liquidity issues. Again we were told the banks have access to cash in Europe.

:confused:

[OneRedArmy]

The point is that building houses creates wealth, it's stating the obvious.
If you build a house you have something of value, if you build two of them you have twice the value etc..
It may lower house prices but that's a good thing, high house prices make people poor.It only creates wealth if there's demand at a profitable price.


Not feeling good about the government guarantees any more.

We are told everything is but no other government has made this move. The guarantee is i believe for all debts over two year period which is fairly wide ranging.

All I can see is this has boosted bank shares which does not solve liquidity issues. Again we were told the banks have access to cash in Europe.

:confused:Woah, slow down Pete.

Lets leave the share price aside. It, in general terms, is nothing other than an indicator of market feeling in any company.

The Government guarantee should provide WAY more liquidity than the ECB fund to date by making it attractive to other banks to lend (as they always had pre-credit crunch).

This action stopped a bank going under last night. You may not agree with that decision (moral hazard etc.), but thats almost certainly a fact.

But its not a silver bullet for the poor lending decisions made over the last 5 years. As Macy alluded to, the next 2-3 years will be bad from a credit perspective as all the dodgy developer and investment loans wash through the system. A lot of these need to be provided for, and most probably written off in many cases, as the security will be close to worthless (certainly landbanks aren't worth tuppence).

So the liquidity provisions were a necessary decision to keep the domestic banking sector afloat. But many, many hard decision lie ahead. Based on the Japanese experience, ignoring and procrastinating over writing down loans only extends a recession.

Time to take our medicine.

[Macy]

I really don't know about this bill. Regardless of the other options open to Government, they can't seem to be able to give any concrete proposals on how this will work, how much it'll cost the tax payer, for what return and how it'll be controlled. The whole putting all the power with the Minister for Finance also appears to be questionable constitutional. It's a total mess.

[Reality Bites]

I think the Banks should pay for this bailout with more that just Government protection charges, I think Heads should roll in the top 6 Banks, I mean CEO should be fired for reckless lending over the last few years..In the US this would be the case

[pete]

I think the Banks should pay for this bailout with more that just Government protection charges, I think Heads should roll in the top 6 Banks, I mean CEO should be fired for reckless lending over the last few years..In the US this would be the case

In the US it was a whole lot worse but the FBI have already been investigating. They will jail people if have evidence something which would never happen here. I am not suggesting we have anything like the sub prime mess they have. Has anyone ever been jailed for insider trading in Ireland?

I heard that rumours of money moving out of UK banks into Irish ones due to this guarantee. Looks like Lenihan might have forced the hand of other governments.

[Pauro 76]

Question for ye, with Halifax only just launched last year in Ireland, they're merging with Lloyds TSB in UK. What's going to happen to Halifax in Ireland?

[OneRedArmy]

I think the Banks should pay for this bailout with more that just Government protection charges, I think Heads should roll in the top 6 Banks, I mean CEO should be fired for reckless lending over the last few years..In the US this would be the caseI think heads will roll in due course.

But, lets be clear, the current level of crystallised losses in Irish banks is extremely low.That will change going forward as our own property bubble washes through obviously.

Also, what happened to shared responsibility?

What all those fools who leveraged themselves up to the hilt? What about the Government who when the brakes should've been applied just added more fuel to the fire?

The scapegoatery at the minute is ridiculous. Joan Burton made a fool of herself last night. No wonder Labour are unelectable.

[Macy]

The scapegoatery at the minute is ridiculous. Joan Burton made a fool of herself last night. No wonder Labour are unelectable.
On what, as what I saw on Prime Time (albeit interupted by a teething baby), it was O'Dea that was fumbling and not being able to answer specifics? It's only right that the opposition point out who helped fuel the bubble - Government and bankers. Mores the pity FG seem to have completely caved on it.

[anto1208]

Question for ye, with Halifax only just launched last year in Ireland, they're merging with Lloyds TSB in UK. What's going to happen to Halifax in Ireland?

Think you are covered by the UK goverment upto 50k and they will change name to Loyds TSB or what ever brand name they will use then. ( they where bank of scotland ireland here before Halifax )